I think it is interesting to focus on what he actually did or didn't do on
the various occasions, because it wasn't always the same thing.

At Ft. Donelson he had made very little provision for supplying his men.
They didn't eat for days and had no protection against a freezing rain.
They got sick. Grant was in a bad situation and was stupified when Buckner
asked for terms (after 2 of the strangest characters of the entire war -
Floyd and Pillow - passed him the baton). Grant was criticized afterward,
but I forget whom Grant blamed there.

At Shiloh he negelected elementary precautions against an attack, was
absent at first, and later blamed Prentiss for the losses and played down
Buell's part in the rescue. He then rationalized about it 20 years later.
He was dying, and he still couldn't tell the truth.

Later at Corinth and Iuka he was absent, and he blamed Rosecrans for
letting Price and Van Dorn get away.

Before the frontal assault at Vicksburg he did no reconnaissance, and
afterward blamed McClernand.

He tried his best at Chattanooga to do his worst, but he couldn't get
around the rock.

Someone else can deal with the other battles.

The point is, Grant on all of these occasions had something else on his
mind other than helping as many of his men as possible survive, something
besides merely winning the battle.

What was this larger vision on Grant's mind which preoccupied him to the
point that the lives of his soldiers didn't matter? Saving the Union? And
maybe something else along with it?

Greetings,

Bob Redman
Sharpshooter Green

Bob Redman

Addison, ... and ... Harbor, North, Anna, Petersburg, Strawberry Plains, The Crater). I think it is interesting to focus on what he actually did or didn t do

Message 2 of 16
, Sep 1, 2000

Addison,

At 09:48 9/1/00 -0600, you wrote:

>He was reckless with his men and pointlessly ordered their slaughter time

I think it is interesting to focus on what he actually did or didn't do on
the various occasions, because it wasn't always the same thing.

At Ft. Donelson he had made very little provision for supplying his men.
They didn't eat for days and had no protection against a freezing rain.
They got sick. Grant was in a bad situation and was stupified when Buckner
asked for terms (after 2 of the strangest characters of the entire war -
Floyd and Pillow - passed him the baton). Grant was criticized afterward,
but I forget whom Grant blamed there.

At Shiloh he negelected elementary precautions against an attack, was
absent at first, and later blamed Prentiss for the losses and played down
Buell's part in the rescue. He then rationalized about it 20 years later.
He was dying, and he still couldn't tell the truth.

Later at Corinth and Iuka he was absent, and he blamed Rosecrans for
letting Price and Van Dorn get away.

Before the frontal assault at Vicksburg he did no reconnaissance, and
afterward blamed McClernand.

He tried his best at Chattanooga to do his worst, but he couldn't get
around the rock.

Someone else can deal with the other battles.

The point is, Grant on all of these occasions had something else on his
mind other than helping as many of his men as possible survive, something
besides merely winning the battle.

What was this larger vision on Grant's mind which preoccupied him to the
point that the lives of his soldiers didn't matter? Saving the Union? And
maybe something else along with it?

Greetings,

Bob Redman
Sharpshooter Green

Don Plezia

Didn t he (Grant) also refuse to exchange prisoners, thereby conedmning those to death in Andersonville? Cordially, D. W. Plezia ... From:

Message 3 of 16
, Sep 1, 2000

Didn't he (Grant) also refuse to exchange prisoners, thereby conedmning
those to death in Andersonville?

> -------------------------- eGroups
Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
> Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
> Install today:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/4/_/14182/_/967819436/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_
->
>
> > I've been through this stuff many times before, but my reaction to
it grows
> > stronger as I get older. This man was a murderous, lying thug. The
problem
> > is that people like him are always waiting in the wings, even today,
for
> > the public's vigilance (such as it is) to relax.
>
> Well put, Mr. Redman.
>
>
> > Today when I taught the chess clinic which I conduct at a local
elementary
> > school, I concluded my lesson about "Love thy pawns" with a story
about
> > Chickamauga. These kids had all heard of the Civil War, some of them
had
> > even heard of Grant, none of them had heard of Thomas of course.
>
> Heck, one must remember that Grant treated his thousands of soldiers
as pawns, sent in to
> be captured. He was reckless with his men and pointlessly ordered
their slaughter time and
> time again (Belmont, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Wilderness, Spotsylvania,
Cold Harbor, North
> Anna, Petersburg, Strawberry Plains, The Crater). He had no regard for
the life of the
> Private Soldier and was responcible for perhaps the death of more
private soldiers and
> officers than any other leader in the War. He did not care because all
he had to due was ask
> for 15,000 men from lincolnto get 15,000 men to replace 15,000
casualties.
>
> All my best,
> Addison Hart,
> jaaah@...
>
>
>
> Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com
>
>
>
>
>

Don Plezia

Didn t he (Grant) also refuse to exchange prisoners, thereby conedmning those to death in Andersonville? Cordially, D. W. Plezia ... From:

Message 4 of 16
, Sep 1, 2000

Didn't he (Grant) also refuse to exchange prisoners, thereby conedmning
those to death in Andersonville?

> -------------------------- eGroups
Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
> Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
> Install today:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/4/_/14182/_/967819436/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_
->
>
> > I've been through this stuff many times before, but my reaction to
it grows
> > stronger as I get older. This man was a murderous, lying thug. The
problem
> > is that people like him are always waiting in the wings, even today,
for
> > the public's vigilance (such as it is) to relax.
>
> Well put, Mr. Redman.
>
>
> > Today when I taught the chess clinic which I conduct at a local
elementary
> > school, I concluded my lesson about "Love thy pawns" with a story
about
> > Chickamauga. These kids had all heard of the Civil War, some of them
had
> > even heard of Grant, none of them had heard of Thomas of course.
>
> Heck, one must remember that Grant treated his thousands of soldiers
as pawns, sent in to
> be captured. He was reckless with his men and pointlessly ordered
their slaughter time and
> time again (Belmont, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Wilderness, Spotsylvania,
Cold Harbor, North
> Anna, Petersburg, Strawberry Plains, The Crater). He had no regard for
the life of the
> Private Soldier and was responcible for perhaps the death of more
private soldiers and
> officers than any other leader in the War. He did not care because all
he had to due was ask
> for 15,000 men from lincolnto get 15,000 men to replace 15,000
casualties.
>
> All my best,
> Addison Hart,
> jaaah@...
>
>
>
> Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com
>
>
>
>
>

jaaah@tbcnet.com

... Well put, Mr. Redman. ... Heck, one must remember that Grant treated his thousands of soldiers as pawns, sent in to be captured. He was reckless with his

Message 5 of 16
, Sep 1, 2000

> I've been through this stuff many times before, but my reaction to it grows
> stronger as I get older. This man was a murderous, lying thug. The problem
> is that people like him are always waiting in the wings, even today, for
> the public's vigilance (such as it is) to relax.

Well put, Mr. Redman.

> Today when I taught the chess clinic which I conduct at a local elementary
> school, I concluded my lesson about "Love thy pawns" with a story about
> Chickamauga. These kids had all heard of the Civil War, some of them had
> even heard of Grant, none of them had heard of Thomas of course.

Heck, one must remember that Grant treated his thousands of soldiers as pawns, sent in to
be captured. He was reckless with his men and pointlessly ordered their slaughter time and
time again (Belmont, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, North
Anna, Petersburg, Strawberry Plains, The Crater). He had no regard for the life of the
Private Soldier and was responcible for perhaps the death of more private soldiers and
officers than any other leader in the War. He did not care because all he had to due was ask
for 15,000 men from lincolnto get 15,000 men to replace 15,000 casualties.

And this is precisely the sort of general Lincoln was looking for (one who could do the math ).

Message 6 of 16
, Sep 1, 2000

And this is precisely the sort of general Lincoln was looking for (one
who could "do the math").

> He did not care because all he had to due was ask
> for 15,000 men from lincolnto get 15,000 men to replace 15,000 casualties.
>
> All my best,
> Addison Hart,
> jaaah@...
>
> Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D.

And this is precisely the sort of general Lincoln was looking for (one who could do the math ).

Message 7 of 16
, Sep 1, 2000

And this is precisely the sort of general Lincoln was looking for (one
who could "do the math").

> He did not care because all he had to due was ask
> for 15,000 men from lincolnto get 15,000 men to replace 15,000 casualties.
>
> All my best,
> Addison Hart,
> jaaah@...
>
> Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

Bob Redman

Addison, ... Lincoln did not have anything like a free hand in choosing and/or promoting the generals, nor did Davis. All such decisions were fraught with

Message 8 of 16
, Sep 1, 2000

Addison,

At 10:58 9/1/00 -0500, you wrote:

>And this is precisely the sort of general Lincoln was looking for (one
>who could "do the math").

Lincoln did not have anything like a free hand in choosing and/or promoting
the generals, nor did Davis. All such decisions were fraught with political
implications. The main thrust of my argument is that there was another man
who could have done the job for Lincoln, and I believe more quickly than it
was done (given the record of correct advice not followed), but this man
could not have been put in charge of all of the armies in early 1864
without creating a lot of protest. Who knows, perhaps Thomas would have
even refused such an offer. Who knows, maybe it was made under the table
anyway.

Two things are certain:

1) The manner in which such decisions were made is much more complicated
than we can imagine;

2) We will never know the entire story.

Greetings,

Bob Redman

Bob Redman

Addison, ... Lincoln did not have anything like a free hand in choosing and/or promoting the generals, nor did Davis. All such decisions were fraught with

Message 9 of 16
, Sep 1, 2000

Addison,

At 10:58 9/1/00 -0500, you wrote:

>And this is precisely the sort of general Lincoln was looking for (one
>who could "do the math").

Lincoln did not have anything like a free hand in choosing and/or promoting
the generals, nor did Davis. All such decisions were fraught with political
implications. The main thrust of my argument is that there was another man
who could have done the job for Lincoln, and I believe more quickly than it
was done (given the record of correct advice not followed), but this man
could not have been put in charge of all of the armies in early 1864
without creating a lot of protest. Who knows, perhaps Thomas would have
even refused such an offer. Who knows, maybe it was made under the table
anyway.

Two things are certain:

1) The manner in which such decisions were made is much more complicated
than we can imagine;

> At Shiloh he negelected elementary precautions against an attack,
> was absent at first, and later blamed Prentiss for the losses and
> played down Buell's part in the rescue. He then rationalized about
> it 20 years later.
> He was dying, and he still couldn't tell the truth.
>

Sharpshooter Green, I think a little sympathetic understanding is due
here. I know you like to put yourself in the other person's place.
General Grant was dying and was in terrible pain and he was broke due
to bad business deals. At the end, all he wanted was to fall back to
the time of his greatest glory. Perhaps he was trying to make a
Nixon-like recovery in the people's mind from a failed presidency
(opinion alert). But despite all the pain, he managed to write
eloquently (there was no quit in this man). The only thing he did
wrong was not to have 'primary sources of documentation' in front of
him to keep him on the straight and narrow and so his writing did
take on some 'spin'. Mr. Woodbury would have chided him on this just
as he has you. Best regards, Dave

David Mercado

... Sharpshooter Green, I think a little sympathetic understanding is due here. I know you like to put yourself in the other person s place. General Grant was

> At Shiloh he negelected elementary precautions against an attack,
> was absent at first, and later blamed Prentiss for the losses and
> played down Buell's part in the rescue. He then rationalized about
> it 20 years later.
> He was dying, and he still couldn't tell the truth.
>

Sharpshooter Green, I think a little sympathetic understanding is due
here. I know you like to put yourself in the other person's place.
General Grant was dying and was in terrible pain and he was broke due
to bad business deals. At the end, all he wanted was to fall back to
the time of his greatest glory. Perhaps he was trying to make a
Nixon-like recovery in the people's mind from a failed presidency
(opinion alert). But despite all the pain, he managed to write
eloquently (there was no quit in this man). The only thing he did
wrong was not to have 'primary sources of documentation' in front of
him to keep him on the straight and narrow and so his writing did
take on some 'spin'. Mr. Woodbury would have chided him on this just
as he has you. Best regards, Dave